... that someone on this site has a user name and signature that is actually the web address of a fascist/racist organisation, the British National Party? (www dot bnp dot org dot uk).

I'm sure that if I were to attempt to sign up using an offensive word or include such in my signature, it would be censored.

Linux is an operating system that spans the world. It is there for all races and creeds. This site should not contain links to such a web site as the British Nazi Party. I suggest the moderators remove the offending posts.

"Linux is an operating system that spans the world. It is there for all races and creeds."

And political parties. The BNP may be controversial, and I personally disagree with what it stands for, but it's still a legitimate political organisation. If we block that, do we block other things we disagree with? This forum is NOT about politics, and if the poster had tried to push his/her ideology, then naturally it'd be different. But the poster remained on-topic -- which is what matters.

I'd like the poster to change his/her nick too, but I won't start banning people because of a reference to a political party I disagree with. That sets a bad precedent

I'm going to have to agree with mike here. I do think it's a poor choice of name, and would be even if it was for any other website. But if we start banning people because we don't like their politics, then surely we would be the Nazis?

I noticed this when the poster first appeared... my first thought was that I don't think it's appropriate for someone to blatantly advertise a political party that is somewhat less than tolerant in that way. But as Mike & Nick say, banning him/her would make us just as bad.

But I do have a choice about whether I respond to posts or not, and I will exercise that choice with open supporters of an organisation that I find distasteful (same as I would if someone had the name www dot microsoft dot com). Others may wish to do likewise.

Perhaps the moderators could gently suggest a change of name to the person in question?

Nigel wrote:But I do have a choice about whether I respond to posts or not, and I will exercise that choice with open supporters of an organisation that I find distasteful (same as I would if someone had the name www dot microsoft dot com). Others may wish to do likewise.

Perhaps the moderators could gently suggest a change of name to the person in question?

Ultimately though if the BNP were to win an election in Britain, they would try to expel non-white citizens. There would be no freedom of speech. I know what side I'm on...

However, this forum member has not said anything offensive on the site, but has merely used the name of an organisation as his nick. That is a blatant attempt to publicise this organisation via the site. And link to that site and it is THAT I object to. If he wants to express views, I will argue with them. What he is doing is free advertising of a political party.

We had a long debate on the "old" site about so-called "Political Correctness" where racist views were expressed, following a letter to the Mag about the lack of Black faces in the photos in the mag. I thought the person who wrote that letter was an idiot, and just provided racists with ammunition, as you could see by some of the contributions to that debate. I and others patiently argued our views.

Directly linking to a site is different. It just gives the BNP publicity with no comeback.

BTW I get the impression it is a BNP tactic to publicise themselves on Websites which are not political. A number of (non computer) sites I visit have already had moderators removing such contributors.

Someone PMed me about this last month. My response was that, at long as the posts were on topic, banning him would be counter-productive. Discussing such matters here only give another platform for their views. It looks like it didn't work as the discussions are already starting. Soon it will degenerate into a political flamefest and bans will be needed.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein)

"Directly linking to a site is different. It just gives the BNP publicity with no comeback."

You could say that about any political party, or company, or group, though. As said, we can't start banning people just because they have political opinions we disagree with -- freedom of speech works both ways. If a user linked to illegal material, then yes, they'd be banned pronto. But this user has been polite and on-topic, so it's wrong to ban him/her because of unrelated political views.

I may disagree with someone's beliefs, but here we're talking about Linux, so that's a separate matter.

"What he is doing is free advertising of a political party."

It's not advertising -- it's a URL. People can visit the site and make up their own minds. And a lot of people who visit the site will be turned off by the BNP's views. But it's best to let people think for themselves rather than banning stuff we dislike...

Maybe if a "code of conduct" document was created, governing the use of links in signatures on the site. Would that allow for some structured filtering of link content, rather than having an on the fly moderators opion technique. The latter could easily get out of hand and so become self defeating. But an actual policy would allow people to know where they stand on links.

hmmm, just found the post in the programming section. Seems benign enough. Not really sure what i think. I agree that freedom of speach needs to be preserved. But banning things only forces things underground and so dosen't solve anything.

I wouldn't have noticed except for this thread.

It reminds me of an event a long time ago when my neighbour was subject to night time threating phone calls while her husband was at work. Seems the group was linked to a parent right-wing organisation based in Perth (wa).

It made me reall angry that my country men were engaged in such things.

I think they eventually bombed some shops in perth -- were caught -- did gaol -- got out --- they didn't change

Certainly a radical site though ...

edit: ( learn't to spell neighbour (grin) )

jm

Last edited by jjmac on Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't see what the big deal is at all. I hardly think people would be up in arms if someone posted with a username of "labour.org.uk" and had a link to "http://www.labour.org.uk/" so why so different for someone supporting the BNP?

M-Saunders wrote:"Directly linking to a site is different. It just gives the BNP publicity with no comeback."

It's not advertising -- it's a URL. People can visit the site and make up their own minds. And a lot of people who visit the site will be turned off by the BNP's views. But it's best to let people think for themselves rather than banning stuff we dislike...

M

Well said that man!

Arrggg! Politics rears it's ugly head!

Did you know that the only person to ever enter Parliment with honourable intentions was Guy Fawkes?

Ok pop quiz time for all the anti-bnp people

Which political party is responsible for the killing of several 1000 Muslims in the past four years, the illegal inprisonment of several hundred Muslims with out trial or legal process and the repealing of the Human Rights Act several months after it was introduced?

a) The BNP
b) The Labour Party

I find it highly offensive that so many people can scream and shout blue murder about a group of losers who have done comparitively little harm to anybody compared to the current facist regime.